The Pal Street property case drew attention as the applicant, Mark Theist, proposed converting the existing two-car garage into a bedroom and building a new garage with a bathroom and driveway reconfiguration. Architect James Daly elaborated on the design, which intended to preserve the character of the neighborhood while maintaining existing setback violations. The board scrutinized the application, considering the lot’s oversized nature and recent renovations, and discussed the variance for exceeding the floor area limit. The discussion extended to the practicality of an attached versus detached garage, the impact on setbacks and parking, and the aesthetics of the proposed structure. The board sought to reconcile the proposed additions with the objectives of the borough’s master plan, particularly regarding the character of the neighborhood and the provision of adequate light, air, and open space.

Further into the meeting, the Zoning Board considered the impact of renovations that involved significant structural changes. A property on Lake Avenue presented a challenge as the addition of a bedroom necessitated more parking spaces. The board weighed the feasibility of this against the existing garage and driveway, as well as the aesthetic consequences of the modifications. Another property discussed involved the renovation of a historic 1930s house, where the board evaluated the acceptability of proposed changes under zoning regulations, considering the nonconformity of the house due to its age and corner lot location.

The Zoning Board also deliberated on the construction of a new residential structure on Church Street. The existing foundation’s inadequacy for a second-floor addition was a concern, leading to a proposal for a new foundation and a reduction in lot coverage to 38%. Architectural plans for the house were presented, prompting a discussion on the attic space’s square footage and configuration. Board members expressed views on the proposed structure’s size and layout, considering the pre-existing nonconformities in the area and the implications of additional variances.

Addressing the renovation of a pre-existing non-conforming structure, board members debated the merits of renovating versus complete reconstruction. The ordinance’s stipulation that no accessory structure can precede the principal building was a point of discussion, with implications for a property owner who desired to maintain a garage while demolishing and rebuilding the house and the possibility of constructing a pool without an existing house.

The meeting closed with procedural matters, including the approval of minutes, resolutions for various properties, and discussions on the need for special meetings to address the backlog of applications. Public comments underscored the importance of maintaining communication with borough residents, emphasizing outreach beyond email.